> On 10/5/07, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 2007 12:45 AM, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's possible to do this, by overloading 'svn cleanup --force' to do
> > > the additional work of the upgrade... I guess the question is now
how
> > > the others feel about this. Should the error happen when someone
wants
> > > to store a depth or when someone executes a write-operation on the
> > > working copy? (Or even when accessing a working copy for read-only
> > > operations?)
> >
> > I don't like confusing the user - any upgrades should be transparent
> > as they have been in the past. -- justin
>
> Ah. But the fact is that transparent updates are actually more
> confusing, from what I hear from admins... What's confusing about
> explicit upgrades (more so that transparent ones)?

How about a config option to enable automatic WC upgrades?
I would prefer it to be off by default, since we need to mix old
and new clients (for various reasons) and I don't think most of
our users will be initially needing the new format.

If automatic upgrades are disabled, and the user tries to do an
operation that needs the new format, it would ask them to upgrade the WC.